Royal Navy to deploy nuclear submarine to the Falkland Islands

RobitTV

The Royal Navy is sending a nuclear submarine to the Falkland Islands amid heightened tensions between Britain and Argentina over the disputed islands, it has been reported.

The Trafalgar class vessel, thought to be either HMS Tireless or HMS Turbulent, is believed to be being deployed to protect the islands from Argentine military action.

A Ministry of Defence (MoD) spokeswoman said: "We do not comment on submarine deployments."

The Daily Mail reported that the Prime Minister had personally approved plans for one of the Navy's most sophisticated submarines to undertake the mission.
Sources told the newspaper that a team of Spanish-speaking communications workers would be aboard to monitor maritime radio transmissions in the region.
It is said the submarine will be in the islands' waters in time for April's 30th anniversary of the 1982 war.

The news comes after the Duke of Cambridge began a six-week posting in the region. William arrived on the archipelago on Thursday ahead of a tour of duty as an RAF search and rescue pilot.

The MoD said the posting was part of a "routine operational deployment", despite Argentina likening it to that of a "conqueror".

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hmKxXSsvu0Lj6ajkylUPib6XMw1Q?docId=N0331191328347401513A

junder

Just making sure the next king Billy is safe

Border-Rat

"We can no longer rely on the Pentagon to support us in helping the islanders in their wish to remain essentially British sovereign territory," he wrote.

"Significantly the islands are already being called the Malvinas by the US. This tells us all too clearly which way the wind is blowing."

"With our land and air forces already over-committed in Afghanistan and Libya, with the defence budget still shrinking, our submarine force more than halved, our destroyer and frigate force halved, our carrier force more than halved in terms of deck availability and completely discarded in terms of fixed wing assets – the answer appears to be that we can do precisely nothing other than accede to US pressure,"

- Admiral Sandy Woodward.

So Argentina can basically take the Islands back at a time of their choosing. I'd suggest during a strike on Iran :cool:

junder

Border-Rat wrote: »

- Admiral Sandy Woodward.

So Argentina can basically take the Islands back at a time of their choosing. I'd suggest during a strike on Iran :cool:

Erm the one submarine now on it's way to the falklands has enough firepower to level Argentina, the conventional tomahawks could take out any invasion fleet before it leaves harbor not forgetting the 1500 or so soldiers stationed on the falklands along with the fixed Wing typhoons and a runway large enough to land whatever extra aircraft are needed I think your celebration of Argentinas disregard for the rights of the falkland islanders my be a little premature

Border-Rat

junder wrote: »

Erm the one submarine now on it's way to the falklands has enough firepower to level Argentina, the conventional tomahawks could take out any invasion fleet before it leaves harbor not forgetting the 1500 or so soldiers stationed on the falklands along with the fixed Wing typhoons and a runway large enough to land whatever extra aircraft are needed I think your celebration of Argentinas disregard for the rights of the falkland islanders my be a little premature

Of course, who is Admiral Sandy Woodward to argue with junder, boards.ie poster. What would he know, have you missed your calling?

woodoo

junder wrote: »

Erm the one submarine now on it's way to the falklands has enough firepower to level Argentina, the conventional tomahawks could take out any invasion fleet before it leaves harbor not forgetting the 1500 or so soldiers stationed on the falklands along with the fixed Wing typhoons and a runway large enough to land whatever extra aircraft are needed

Thats true but i don't see that happen.

Argentina are going to play a long game and try and isolate the Falklanders. If they succeed in getting Chile to stop the only remaining flights to and from the Falklands things could get very difficult.

bwatson

Border-Rat wrote: »

- Admiral Sandy Woodward.

So Argentina can basically take the Islands back at a time of their choosing. I'd suggest during a strike on Iran :cool:

Yes, if they are willing to lose one of their medium sized cities, see the ending of the nuclear tabboo, and more or less be the nation which was to blame for the world slipping into an age of severe tension, fear, hatred and ultimately unfathomable destruction and death

Border-Rat

bwatson wrote: »

Yes, if they are willing to lose one of their medium sized cities, see the ending of the nuclear tabboo, and more or less be the nation which was to blame for the world slipping into an age of severe tension, fear, hatred and ultimately unfathomable destruction and death

If who is willing to lose one of their cities? Iran or Argentina? You seriously think one of either Countries cities could be wiped out without a response?

And what does Israel have to do with Malvinas?

junder

Border-Rat wrote: »

Of course, who is Admiral Sandy Woodward to argue with junder, boards.ie poster. What would he know, have you missed your calling?

Disgruntled navy officer bitches about the armed forces in a newspaper, who'd have thought it

Gregor Samsa

bwatson wrote: »

Yes, if they are willing to lose one of their medium sized cities, see the ending of the nuclear tabboo, and more or less be the nation which was to blame for the world slipping into an age of severe tension, fear, hatred and ultimately unfathomable destruction and death

A nuclear submarine is one powered by a nuclear reactor (as opposed to diesel engines), not one that necessarily carriers nuclear weapons (although it can). The advantage of a nuclear sub is range (pretty much unlimited) and stealth. There's absolutely no way the UK would use a nuclear weapon against Argentina in defense of the Falklands, so there's zero chance of what you've described happening.

bwatson

Border-Rat wrote: »

If who is willing to lose one of their cities? Iran or Argentina? You seriously think one of either Countries cities could be wiped out without a response?

And what does Israel have to do with Malvinas?

Why do you call the Falkland Islands "the Malvinas"?

Do you genuinely believe that the Argentines have a legitimate claim to them or are you just a bitter little man who would side with the devil were he to take on Britain?

Do you support Britain's claim to the entire island of Ireland? After all it is a smaller, far less populated lump of rock close to Britain. It is ours isn't it? Who cares what those damned Irish think?

bwatson

phutyle wrote: »

A nuclear submarine is one powered by a nuclear reactor (as opposed to diesel engines), not one that necessarily carriers nuclear weapons (although it can). The advantage of a nuclear sub is range (pretty much unlimited) and stealth. There's absolutely no way the UK would use a nuclear weapon against Argentina in defense of the Falklands, so there's zero chance of what you've described happening.

I know that. I had missed that it was a trafalgar class boat being sent which does not carry nuclear weapons. Still, there is no way the Argentines, who have not modernized their military since the early eighties, will risk having government and administrative buildings "tomahawked" or their aged, massively outdated navy sunk by a British submarine for the sake of the Falklands. Once was enough.

junder

The submarine in question can carry over 240 nuclear warheads, yes nuclear weapons would not be used however the conventional tomahawk cruise missiles are also capable of hitting anyway in argentina so that in it's self is enough to stop the Argentines from invading not forgetting the 1500+ soldiers already stationed on the island. The last time they invaded they faced 22 royal marines and this happened

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/5153220/The-22-Royal-Marines-who-took-on-Argentine-Falklands-invasion-force.html


The 22 Royal Marines who took on Argentine Falklands invasion force

Soldiers on air defence duty at Bluff Cove on the Falkland Islands, ready for Argentine air attack
Photo: PA
By Aislinn Simpson
Last Updated: 6:09PM BST 16/04/2009
The story of how 22 Royal Marines took on an entire Argentine invasion force at the start of the Falklands War has been told for the first time by one of the men involved.

Urged by its commanders not to surrender to enemy troops advancing on the tiny Atlantic outpost of South Georgia, the small band managed to shoot down a helicopter gunship and disable a warship in an action described as a modern day "Rorke's Drift".

The Argentines never revealed how many the men they lost that day, but the two-hour battle gave the Junta its first bloody nose and Margaret Thatcher the evidence she needed to convince the House of Commons that the Falklands could be won back.

Former Section Commander George Thomsen, who was 24 at the time, arrived on the freezing island with 20 other marines under Lieutenant Keith Mills.

They had instructions to monitor a group of Argentine scrap metal workers who had provocatively hoisted their national flag on the British territory, located some 1,400 kilometres east of the Falklands.

Within a week, they heard the Governor of the Falklands, Rex Hunt, declare a state of emergency on the BBC World Service and shortly afterwards, on April 2, that the Falklands had been invaded.

Lt Mills sent a message to the HMS Endurance, the Royal Navy's Ice Patrol ship in the Falklands, asking for instructions. The response came back: "When asked to surrender you are not to do so."

They set about booby-trapping the shore and fashioning a bomb beneath the jetty that was packed with nuts, bolts and harpoon heads, posing in front of it for one last picture just 30 seconds before they heard the first Argentinian helicopter approaching.

Using just small arms fire, the men who were later nicknamed Mills' Marauders shot down the Puma gunship as it attempted to land.

As hundreds of Argentine troops swarmed onto the island, they decided to take out a warship.

Using a combination of bazookas and small arms fire, they targeted the Argentine Corvette ARA Guerrico which was too close to shore to use its own guns.

Holed beneath the water line, its Exocet launchers and front gun destroyed, the listing ship limped away from the island.

In his book, Too Few Too Far, S/C Thomsen described how he and his comrades never expected to live and so were not afraid to push their luck.

He said: "We were putting sniper fire through the Guerrico's bridge so they didn't know where they were going. It was the first time in history anything like that had been done.

"At the same time they were landing troops from two or three other ships and we were outnumbered 50-1, or 100-1 if you count everyone on their ships.

"It was like Rorke's Drift, except the enemy was well armed.

"At the end our escape route had been cut off and one of us had been hit in the arm. I was about to put some mortars down on the shore when I saw the boss walking towards the enemy. He just went up to them and said that we'd fight to the last and carry on killing them and it was the Argies who called it a day.

"They couldn't believe there were only 22 of us. We weren't expected to come back, it was a one-way ticket for me."

The marines were rounded up and taken as prisoners of war to Argentina, but were returned home shortly afterwards where they were feted as national heroes.

S/C Thomsen, now 51, rose to the rank of sergeant and was later team leader of the Royal Marines freefall display team.

He is married with two children and lives on the south coast. Too Few Too Far is published by Amberely.

charlemont

The Argentinians would want to cop on and stop looking for attention, They were colonists themselves so its like the pot calling the kettle black, If the Falklands had a native population I would be against the British being there but they don't.

junder

charlemont wrote: »

The Argentinians would want to cop on and stop looking for attention, They were colonists themselves so its like the pot calling the kettle black, If the Falklands had a native population I would be against the British being there but they don't.

And if it had a native population and the population wanted to stay British?

Border-Rat

junder wrote: »

Disgruntled navy officer bitches about the armed forces in a newspaper, who'd have thought it

An Admiral, Sir Sandy Woodward, who led British Forces to victory in Malvinas. Now who would know more, a Knighted Admiral who won a war over Malvinas. Or, a poster on the internet, who has probably never set foor even in that Hemisphere who declares that said Admiral is wrong - strategically only ballistic missiles would be required.

LOL.

phutyle wrote: »

A nuclear submarine is one powered by a nuclear reactor (as opposed to diesel engines), not one that necessarily carriers nuclear weapons (although it can). The advantage of a nuclear sub is range (pretty much unlimited) and stealth. There's absolutely no way the UK would use a nuclear weapon against Argentina in defense of the Falklands, so there's zero chance of what you've described happening.

Such is his cartoon-level understanding of the issue. Why, all the UK would have to do is nuke Argentina. Nope, can't think of any consequences to that. Can't think of any at all

bwatson wrote: »

Why do you call the Falkland Islands "the Malvinas"?

Well, because thats their name.

Do you genuinely believe that the Argentines have a legitimate claim to them or are you just a bitter little man who would side with the devil were he to take on Britain?

Yes.

Do you support Britain's claim to the entire island of Ireland? After all it is a smaller, far less populated lump of rock close to Britain. It is ours isn't it? Who cares what those damned Irish think?

Lol, well. Evidently you do, a self-declared Briton. If you don't care about Irish opinion, why are you posting here?

junder

So what paper did you lift the article from then ratty?

Sunnyisland

junder wrote: »

So what paper did you lift the article from then ratty?

Ratty :D:D

Jonny7

Border-Rat wrote: »

Well, because thats their name.

They were originally known as the Sebald Islands or Îles Malouines

KeithAFC

Right decision. It is important the Falkands are protected and the British people on them are protected.

Fratton Fred

bwatson wrote: »

Why do you call the Falkland Islands "the Malvinas"?

Do you genuinely believe that the Argentines have a legitimate claim to them or are you just a bitter little man who would side with the devil were he to take on Britain?

Do you support Britain's claim to the entire island of Ireland? After all it is a smaller, far less populated lump of rock close to Britain. It is ours isn't it? Who cares what those damned Irish think?

A lot of people in Northern Ireland, especially in Londonderry call it the Malvinas for some reason. A lot of people in Eire do as well.

Fratton Fred

HMS Dauntless is on its way to the Falklands as well, that adds some pretty effective air defence to the islands as well.

Jonny7

Fratton Fred wrote: »

A lot of people in Northern Ireland, especially in Londonderry call it the Malvinas for some reason. A lot of people in Eire do as well.

I have never ever heard it called the Malvinas over here before. Anyone outside of Argentina calling it that has a serious historical chip on their shoulder.

By the way I am going to Gaul on my holidays next week, should be good.

newmug

What is it with certain pro-UK posters on Boards? Can you not admit, as decent human beings, that some of the things your ancestors (indeed, our common ancestors in a lot of cases!) did were wrong, like eh let me see, killing other people an colonising their land? How can you not see the injustice? How can you support this? Most UK people I know are 100% sound, and they do admit that these things should never have happened, and that they should be put right in this day-and-age. As a mature, civilised, educated society of compasionate human beings, how can you knowingly condone this neanderthal behaviour?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

so when exactly did the brits steal the falklands from argentina?

OS119

NO to colonialism in south america!

NO to the imperialists and their vested interets!

freedom for the people of South America!

Kirchners fcuk off back to Spain - or was it Germany?...

Jonny7

newmug wrote: »

What is it with certain pro-UK posters on Boards? Can you not admit, as decent human beings, that some of the things your ancestors (indeed, our common ancestors in a lot of cases!) did were wrong, like eh let me see, killing other people an colonising their land? How can you not see the injustice? How can you support this? Most UK people I know are 100% sound, and they do admit that these things should never have happened, and that they should be put right in this day-and-age. As a mature, civilised, educated society of compasionate human beings, how can you knowingly condone this neanderthal behaviour?

Because your ancestors did the same. For all you know your great-great-great-great grandfather ran a slave boat. We're not exactly talking recent history here. We're all basically colonists.

The Falkanders appear to want to remain a part of country A as opposed to country B. Up until such a point arises that they wish to change that or become fully independent then I see no reason why there is any debate.

sink

newmug wrote: »

What is it with certain pro-UK posters on Boards? Can you not admit, as decent human beings, that some of the things your ancestors (indeed, our common ancestors in a lot of cases!) did were wrong, like eh let me see, killing other people an colonising their land? How can you not see the injustice? How can you support this? Most UK people I know are 100% sound, and they do admit that these things should never have happened, and that they should be put right in this day-and-age. As a mature, civilised, educated society of compasionate human beings, how can you knowingly condone this neanderthal behaviour?

Our Irish ancestors were not some innocent doe eyed bunch of pacifists either. They quite often raped, pillaged and enslaved others (St. Patrick). Trying to apply our modern moral values to our ancestors and that of the English is foolish. What happened back then is for the history books and should not be used to justify what happens today.

Richard

sink wrote: »

Our Irish ancestors were not some innocent doe eyed bunch of pacifists either. They quite often raped, pillaged and enslaved others (St. Patrick). Trying to apply our modern moral values to our ancestors and that of the English is foolish. What happened back then is for the history books and should not be used to justify what happens today.

That's probably the best post on boards.ie ever.

If we all had a bit of common sense, it would stop all these stupid NI/British/English threads that we get on here so often.

blinding

Somewhere down the line the British are going to have to make a deal with Argentina over the Malvinas/Falkands. Lets hope its not after another war where more young usefull idiots manage to get themselves maimed or killed.

South America is no longer a poor relation and will use its economic influence to have a greater say in the world.

woodoo

blinding wrote: »

Somewhere down the line the British are going to have to make a deal with Argentina over the Malvinas/Falkands. Lets hope its not after another war where more young usefull idiots manage to get themselves maimed or killed.

South America is no longer a poor relation and will use its economic influence to have a greater say in the world.

Yeah little old Great Britain is becoming smaller by the year.

OS119

blinding wrote: »

Somewhere down the line the British are going to have to make a deal with Argentina over the Malvinas/Falkands. Lets hope its not after another war where more young usefull idiots manage to get themselves maimed or killed.

South America is no longer a poor relation and will use its economic influence to have a greater say in the world.

while there is logic in that, the French have an overseas dependancy - St. Pierre and Miquelon - just 20 miles off the coast of Newfoundland. there are issues between the French and Canadians over fisheries and the like, but somehow the Canadians manage to keep their nationalistic outrage at the concept of some Islands near Canada not actually belonging to Canada in check.

perhaps the Argentines could learn something from the Canadians...

Richard

OS119 wrote: »

while there is logic in that, the French have an overseas dependancy - St. Pierre and Miquelon - just 20 miles off the coast of Newfoundland. there are issues between the French and Canadians over fisheries and the like, but somehow the Canadians manage to keep their nationalistic outrage at the concept of some Islands near Canada not actually belonging to Canada in check.

perhaps the Argentines could learn something from the Canadians...

Somehow Ireland manages to get by without coveting the Isle of Man. I don't know how they manage it...

woodoo

Richard wrote: »

Somehow Ireland manages to get by without coveting the Isle of Man. I don't know how they manage it...

But if some colonial power from south america had it people may feel differently.

BlaasForRafa

newmug wrote: »

What is it with certain pro-UK posters on Boards? Can you not admit, as decent human beings, that some of the things your ancestors (indeed, our common ancestors in a lot of cases!) did were wrong, like eh let me see, killing other people an colonising their land? How can you not see the injustice? How can you support this? Most UK people I know are 100% sound, and they do admit that these things should never have happened, and that they should be put right in this day-and-age. As a mature, civilised, educated society of compasionate human beings, how can you knowingly condone this neanderthal behaviour?

What is it with certain anti-UK posters on Boards? Can you not admit, as decent human beings, that some of the things your ancestors (indeed, our common ancestors in a lot of cases!) did were wrong, like eh let me see, killing innocent civilians by bombing rememberance services and pubs? How can you not see the injustice? How can you support this? Most Irish people I know are 100% sound, and they do admit that these things should never have happened, and that they should be put right in this day-and-age. As a mature, civilised, educated society of compasionate human beings, how can you knowingly condone this neanderthal behaviour?

BlaasForRafa

blinding wrote: »

Somewhere down the line the British are going to have to make a deal with Argentina over the Malvinas/Falkands. Lets hope its not after another war where more young usefull idiots manage to get themselves maimed or killed.

The deal will be something like this "We're keeping the islands, you lot can go get stuffed"

OS119

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The deal will be something like this "We're keeping the islands, you lot can go get stuffed"

thats going to be policy for a long time - and the truth is that while life may be less comfortable on the islands if they are completely blanked by the whole of SA, life would be entirely livable. they grow enough food, produce enough electricity, have a decent enough hospital, and have the RAF airbridge to provide university education, medical, educational and legal professionals and medical evacuation, and the islands produce enough of an economy to keep them functioning as a society. its also true that if the UK defence budget was cut in half, the UK could still hold the islands against all comers from SA.

the problem is going to be if - and i stress if - SA (primarily the oil producing countries, and Brazil) both become much bigger economic beasts than they currently are, and they decide to really go to town on the issue. if SA became a 'europe-lite' in terms of their economic power, they could say to the EU that they will not deal with the EU if the EU continues to deal with the UK while the UK continues with its current policy on the Islands. the UK's friends in this case are likely to be France as France also has overseas territories that it wants to keep hold of, while Germany is likely to cave given the combination of its export driven economy and its general desire not to get involved in overseas policy.

the opposite of that is the example i gave above - the French overseas dependancy off the coast of Canada - despite the collective identity of the US and Canada, their economic, political and military power, North America has no problem with St. Peirre and Miquelon, and doesn't feel that it needs to take ownership of the territory to preserve its self image. it all depends on the political maturity of the SA wide society that will develop in the future...

Jonny7

Richard wrote: »

Somehow Ireland manages to get by without coveting the Isle of Man. I don't know how they manage it...

Why not call it by one of its many original names e.g. Ellan Vannin out of spite for centuries of conquest

Richard

woodoo wrote: »

But if some colonial power from south america had it people may feel differently.

Not if the islanders wanted to be part if that "colonial power" you mentioned.

Dotsie~tmp

Air blockade?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/07/falkland-islands-argentina-announcement-malvinas?newsfeed=true

http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/92079/cfk-expected-to-make-announcement-on-malvinas-islands

OS119

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

Air blockade?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/07/falkland-islands-argentina-announcement-malvinas?newsfeed=true

http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/92079/cfk-expected-to-make-announcement-on-malvinas-islands

they don't seem to know their arse from the elbow on this - one apparently well-informed article suggests that they want to go for a blockade (its not technically a blockade, but the effect is the same), while the other apparently well-informed article says they 'want to be friends' with the islanders.

quite how banning boats from the islands from MERCOSUR countries, and telling the islanders don't get a say in who their islands belong to constitutes 'being friends' i'm not sure.

50p says todays anouncement from the fragrant Christina is full of piss and wind, and that she'll protest to the UN about British warships patrolling British waters, and the UN will roll its eyes and shrug with embarrassment and hope that she goes away...

walshb

Jonny7 wrote: »

Because your ancestors did the same. For all you know your great-great-great-great grandfather ran a slave boat. We're not exactly talking recent history here. We're all basically colonists.

The Falkanders appear to want to remain a part of country A as opposed to country B. Up until such a point arises that they wish to change that or become fully independent then I see no reason why there is any debate.

Fact is, that it's a part of human nature to do what the British did. IF Ireland had the power and might, our people would have colonised. Power brings hunger, passion, needs, and good and bad. Britain simply had the power and the means to exercise that power. Make no mistake, there is virtually NO innate difference between the average Irish man and the average British man. What separated them over the years' was that one had such power and the other did not. Reverse it, and Britain are being colonised by the Irishman.

woodoo

walshb wrote: »

Fact is, that it's a part of human nature to do what the British did. IF Ireland had the power and might, our people would have colonised. Power brings hunger, passion, needs, and good and bad. Britain simply had the power and the means to exercise that power. Make no mistake, there is virtually NO innate difference between the average Irish man and the average British man. What separated them over the years' was that one had such power and the other did not. Reverse it, and Britain are being colonised by the Irishman.

I'd say life was so grim back in those times for your average English peasant that they were only too happy to board a ship and hit the seas. At least they got fed while fighting and colonising.

Dotsie~tmp

Anyone listen? Appeared to be a lot of veiled threats in that speech.

Manach

Perhaps it would give the Argintines pause if the Falklanders gain EU citizenship like other overseas terroritories as the French have done to their's.

Jonny7

This is extraordinary.. the Argentine PM is trying to bring it to the UN.

Whats next, the ancestors of indigenous South American tribes start claiming their land back?

LordSutch

woodoo wrote: »

Yeah little old Great Britain is becoming smaller by the year.

The 'Great' of course relates to the islands size in relation to Brittany, which is small by comparisson.
And yes Great Britain probably is becoming smaller by the year, mostly due to coastal erosion & acid rain )

OS119

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

Anyone listen? Appeared to be a lot of veiled threats in that speech.

yeah, i got that to - and not so veiled either!

i wonder quite how the average Irish voter would take seeing David Cameron speak about 'relations' between the RoI and the UK against a backdrop of a map of Ireland coloured in a Union flag?

perhaps we should have a poll...

getz

Manach wrote: »

Perhaps it would give the Argintines pause if the Falklanders gain EU citizenship like other overseas terroritories as the French have done to their's.

that dont work,gibraltar and its citizens are EU citizens and even have their own EU MPs ,yet that dont stop the spanish from blockades and no fly zones and breaching EU laws against them

belacqua_

getz wrote: »

that dont work,gibraltar and its citizens are EU citizens and even have their own EU MPs ,yet that dont stop the spanish from blockades and no fly zones and breaching EU laws against them

Don't stop, or didn't stop? Either way that's all poppycock. The lifting of the blockade (in 1985) and the subsequent normalisation of relations (largely at the behest of the EEC and subsequently the EU -- the Brussels Process) between the UK and Spain was brought about by Gibraltar joining the EEC with Britain in 1973. Also, passenger flights between Gibraltar and Spain have been in operation for the past five and a half years, not a very effective no fly zone.

Fratton Fred

The Argentine Premier league is going to be renamed General Belgrano. Not after the man, but after the ship.

So much for keeping politics out of football.